McKeen v. Haseltine
| Decision Date | 01 July 1891 |
| Citation | 49 N.W. 195,46 Minn. 426 |
| Parties | Frederick K. McKeen v. Charles P. Haseltine and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants Haseltine & Farnham and the Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Co. from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, establishing mechanics' liens to the amount of $ 287.78 in favor of plaintiff, and $ 5,462.06 in favor of the defendant the Willford & Northway Mfg. Co. against certain real estate of defendant James B. Holmes situate in Polk county, and adjudging such liens to be superior to those of the appellants. The action was brought in Polk county, and by consent of parties removed to Hennepin county, and there tried by Smith, J.
Judgment affirmed.
Daniel Fish, for appellants.
E. D Jackson and Geo. H. White, for respondents.
The plaintiff prosecutes this action to foreclose a mechanic's lien upon real estate of the defendant Holmes and to have it adjudged that the rights of the other defendants in the property are subordinate to the plaintiff's lien. Upon the facts found by the court, it was adjudged that the property was subject to mechanics' liens in favor of the plaintiff and of the defendant the Willford & Northway Manufacturing Company; that such liens were co-ordinate; that both were superior to the claims of the other defendants; and that the property be sold to satisfy such liens. The defendants Haseltine & Farnham and the Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Company appealed from the judgment. The contest is between the parties having mechanics' liens, -- that is, the plaintiff and the defendant the Willford & Northway Manufacturing Company, on the one side, and the defendants Haseltine & Farnham on the other; the rights of the latter being based on certain mortgages executed by Holmes, the landowner, as security for his indebtedness, as will be hereafter more fully stated. There is some controversy as to the time when the property became first subject to the mechanics' liens, so as to give such liens priority over subsequently executed mortgages; but for the present we will assume that the findings of the court as to that are correct, and consider the rights of the appellants in that view of the case.
The property of Holmes on which the liens were charged consisted of a platted tract, known as "Block 102," in a certain addition to the town of Red Lake Falls. The plaintiff's right of lien was for work done by him for Holmes, as a millwright, in the erection of a mill on this land. This labor is found to have been commenced April 11, 1889, and terminated January 17, 1890, and the lien-statement was soon thereafter filed for record. The lien of the Willford & Northway Manufacturing Company was for labor performed and materials and machinery furnished for the erection of the mill, commencing March 26, 1889, and terminating October 21st of the same year. The lien-statement was filed for record in December following. In August, 1889, Holmes executed to that company his two promissory notes for the amount then due and payable to the company, the notes being payable in 60 and 90 days, respectively. These notes were not given in payment of the debt, as the court found, and they were not intended to affect the right to a lien. On the 5th day of October, 1889, those notes being unpaid, Holmes executed to the company, in lieu thereof, a new note for the amount of the same, payable four months after that date, and secured it by a mortgage on real estate other than that on which the mill was situated. This note and mortgage, as the court found, were not taken in payment of the debt, but as further security. They remained in the hands of the company, and at the trial were offered to be surrendered.
January 26, 1889, and prior, as it will be seen, to the commencement of the contributions of labor or material for which liens were acquired, Holmes, being indebted to Haseltine & Farnham in the sum of $ 12,000, executed to them his note therefor, secured by a mortgage then executed, covering this property, with some other, which was recorded two days subsequently. April 4, 1889 Holmes, being indebted to the same parties in the further sum of $ 3,000, executed to one of them, for the benefit of both, his note therefor, secured by a mortgage on this with other land, which was recorded two days subsequently. It will be seen that this mortgage was anterior to the commencement of the work for which the plaintiff's lien was acquired, but subsequent to the commencement of the charges allowed as liens in favor of the Willford & Northway Manufacturing Company. In September...
To continue reading
Request your trial